Philip Hollobone: The Secretary of State's Department has been criticised for the use of consultants in Malawi and for the extensive expenses that were built up. Can he tell the House how many consultants his Department employs around the world and what safeguards are in place to ensure that their expenditure is spent effectively?

Hilary Benn: The number varies from time to time and I will see whether I can come back to the hon. Gentleman with a figure. DFID's total expenditure on consultants as a proportion of our bilateral budget has fallen from 10 per cent., as I recollect it, in 1997–98 to about 5 per cent. now, so it is a falling share compared with the position that we inherited in 1997. We use consultants for a range of activities, partly to help deliver programmes and partly to give us advice.
	In respect of Malawi, I have to say that some of the criticism was ill founded, because the training programmes that the National Democratic Institute was engaged in were supporting civil society and parliamentarians in Malawi to think about how they could do their jobs more effectively. It included hiring rooms for training courses and feeding people who were attending them—a normal day-to-day activity that Members of the House and of all organisations engage in. The feedback from participants in those programmes was that that support and training was very helpful in assisting them to do their job as elected representatives.

Chris McCafferty: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only that working relationship that needs to be improved, but that of the sexual and reproductive health stakeholders and HIV/AIDS stakeholders? I hope that the Secretary of State will assure the House that he will engage the UN at the very highest levels to help secure a target for reproductive health within the millennium development goal framework. Will he also report back on progress and the success that he achieves?

Mark Simmonds: Effective prevention, education and treatment in respect of HIV/AIDS are essential if we are to progress control of the disease and Opposition Members welcome the aspirations in that regard at the G8 summit and the global fund replenishment summit. Increasingly, however, DFID's budget is being spent through partnerships with Governments, multilateral organisations and institutions, and NGOs—channels that have minimal accountability. Will the Minister say what progress DFID has made since the critical report of November 2003 in monitoring and evaluating the channels through which British taxpayers' money is spent? How will partnership performance be assessed and resources allocated to ensure maximum prevention, and maximum treatment, of HIV/AIDS?

Hilary Benn: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the need to close the gender equality gap and to get all the children in sub-Saharan Africa who are not attending primary school into classrooms. Fulfilling those objectives depends on the capacity of the Governments of developing countries to raise the finance, employ the teachers and build the schools. In particular relation to girls, the task is to address the other factors that prevent girls from getting to school. Something as practical as a lack of toilet facilities can make parents reluctant to send their daughters to school. Another factor could be the lack of clean water, because if water has to be fetched and carried from somewhere else, we know that that burden falls on girls and women. If girls have to fetch and carry water, they cannot go to school.
	School fees present another obstacle that has to be overcome, as they prevent poor families from sending their children to school. If those poor families have to make a choice, they may choose to pay fees for a boy but not for a girl. Those are the problems that we must address if we are going to help developing countries reach the 2015 target.

Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the problem. As he knows, the real problem involves the factors that drive teachers and other skilled professionals out of developing countries, such as poor pay and working conditions, and the lack of opportunity for career and professional development. In the course of 2005, various commitments have been made to help developing countries improve pay and working conditions for teachers and provide more career and professional development, and the British Government have also increased aid to that end. Another obstacle is the lack of housing for teachers in rural areas: if there is no house to live in, is it any wonder that teachers are reluctant to go and work in a remote rural community? That is what we have to address, and our increased aid is supporting that effort.
	For example, the new president of Burundi has just abolished school fees. On the first day, 500,000 children turned up for school, 300,000 of whom had not been to school before. Although there is still the same number of teachers in the schools there, we have given the country some financial assistance to help it to begin to address that enormous challenge.

Gareth Thomas: I agree that the trade talks in Hong Kong are hugely important. While the movement that we have seen from the United States, and indeed from the European Union, is welcome, we want to see more movement from the US in terms of agricultural subsidies. We want stronger references to cotton and to special products if we are to achieve from the trade talks the outcome that we want and that is genuinely in the interests of developing countries.

Gareth Thomas: Either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I would be happy to meet the delegation.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to raise TB. Along with malaria and HIV/AIDS, it is having a devastating impact on Africa and, indeed, many other parts of the world. He will be aware of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We hosted the replenishment conference for that fund in September and raised £3.7 billion for it. There will be a further funding conference next year, and we hope that further funding will be pledged.

Tony Lloyd: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will recognise that President Musharraf was right when he paid tribute to the role of the British Government and to my right hon. Friend. However, as winter approaches, many hundreds of thousands of people still face terrible conditions and possible death and the international community has not put in the effort that our Government have done. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the money pledged by the EU and other donors is delivered—and soon—because the time to rescue the people in the mountains is disappearing quickly? [Interruption.]

Hilary Benn: I am sure that, as the European Union considers how it may provide support to the reconstruction process, it will be happy to look at all possible measures. Issues, and some difficulties, would arise from the proposal that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I simply say to him that the task of reconstruction will be big and take a long time. Our immediate concern has to be with helping to save the lives of those who are in desperate need as we speak. The time will come for reconstruction and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will attend the conference in Pakistan being held on 19 November. We will make a commitment there to support the reconstruction, in the same way as Britain has played an honourable role in helping to save the lives of those affected by that terrible catastrophe.

Tony Blair: We have made changes to try to reach a compromise; that is true. But I want to explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to his hon. Friends why I believe this is so necessary. Let me emphasise again to the House: this proposal did not originate with the Government, it originated with the police and those responsible for anti-terrorist operations in our country. If I may quote from those responsible for conducting those operations, I will do so. The chief constable of Manchester, for example, said:
	"The reality of the terrorism threat that we currently face is so horrendous in terms of the implications that we are having to intervene far earlier in the investigation than we ever would have during IRA campaigns . . . because with mass casualty terrorism we cannot afford to take any chances."
	Andy Hayman, who is the senior police officer charged with leading anti-terrorist operations in this country, said:
	"We are not looking for legislation to hold people for up to three months simply because it is an easy option. It is absolutely vital. To prevent further attacks we must have it."
	That is the police saying to us that they need these powers to prevent terrorism in this country. In the last week, we have learned that, since 7 July, two further terrorist plots have been foiled in this country. Yesterday, Australia announced—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps those who foiled the plots might have their advice taken a little more seriously. Secondly—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) just say, "A police state."?

Tony Blair: First, Andy Hayman's letter and document set out very clearly why the 90 days are necessary. Let me explain again the basic argument of the police. Most reasonable people would see what they are trying to say. Because of the nature of the new terrorism that we face, because the terrorists want to kill people without limit—in July they killed 50 people in London, but they would have killed 500 had they been able to do so—when the police are investigating whether or not a conspiracy is taking place, they are naturally inclined to charge these people, to take them and arrest them, earlier than they otherwise would. If they make a mistake about the particular gestation period of the conspiracy and they get it wrong—they might think that the conspiracy is in its early stages, but in fact it is well advanced—we could end up with mass casualties on our streets. For that reason, the police say that this is a completely different situation.
	We need to be able to lift these people earlier and accumulate evidence to charge them after arrest. The number of people, for example, who have been kept for over seven days since the new powers were introduced is just over 30, so we are not talking about large numbers of people, but they may be the crucial difference between saving this country from a terrorist attack and not doing so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we will alienate minority communities, but it is sad that he should make that argument.—[Interruption.] The Muslim community in this country is as determined as any other part of our community to defeat terrorism. Its members do not want to be told that they are against this because it alienates them—they want these people dealt with and arrested. In the end, if this is the best argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make, I suggest that he and his colleagues ask themselves whether they really think that this is where the Conservative party should be.

Mark Durkan: Does the Prime Minister appreciate the concerns about collusion in the past between state forces and various paramilitaries in Northern Ireland? With the publication of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill today, we now have collusion on the past between the state and Sinn Fein. Will he accept that victims, including victims of state collusion, will be not only deprived of justice, but denied even truth?

Tony Blair: The purpose of the reforms is to do two things: first, to ensure that we continue pathways into work, which gives people on incapacity benefit support and help in leaving the benefit and getting back into the workplace—all the evidence is that that is best for them as well as for the country—and secondly, to ensure that people only get on to incapacity benefit if they are genuinely entitled to it. That is the reason for tightening up the gateway. We have put an awful lot of money into the new deal and other programmes designed to help people off benefit and into work. It has been very successful; indeed, it is the reason why we now spend about £5 billion a year less on benefits than we did in 1997. That is the spirit in which we will take forward incapacity benefit reform. I think that most hon. Members who know about the issue know that reform is necessary.

Charles Hendry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the mental health and special learning needs of convicted prisoners; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is specific in trying to address the problems that affect a significant proportion of our prison population. I introduce it because I believe that the way in which our penal system cares for those with mental health needs at the start of the 21st century is a stain on our society.
	Daniel Meehan, a young constituent of mine, had always been a troubled young man. He had a history of mental illness and drifted in and out of prison throughout his adult life. Daniel had been diagnosed as suffering from a series of mental illnesses, including the antisocial personality disorder, Tourette's syndrome, from the age of 17. He had spent around half his life in prison but he never received the help and treatment that he needed to tackle his problems.
	Instead of rehabilitation, Daniel was left exposed and fell foul of the problems that, all too often, vulnerable people face in prison. He developed a heroin addiction while in jail and started to abuse alcohol. In September last year, on his discharge from prison, he was left homeless, without his medication or even any clothes. He was bailed by the courts to his father's address. When his father was not at home, he looked for somewhere else to stay and, as a result, he was rearrested for breaking his bail conditions and taken back into custody. His mother and sister desperately tried to arrange specialist care for Daniel and eventually arranged for a social worker to visit him in Lewes prison. However, on the same day the social worker was due to visit, he was moved to Her Majesty's prison Weare, a floating prison off Dorset.
	Neither the social worker nor Daniel's family had been made aware of the transfer, yet the prison system somehow expected a prisoner with a long history of mental illness to rearrange the appointment himself. Daniel's complex needs were never properly assessed. Alone and without the support he needed, Daniel died at his father's house in January this year, aged 29. The coroner returned an open verdict on the death, but to most of us who had seen his case develop, we have no doubt that suicide would have been the more appropriate verdict.
	Daniel's family freely admit that he was a difficult man, but time and again, over almost 10 years, the prison system consistently failed to address his problems. As Daniel's sister, Mrs Meehan-Bissett, said:
	"Prison was not the answer for someone like Daniel, he needed rehabilitation. He died due to neglect. The prison authorities cannot be bothered with someone like Daniel . . . There needs to be somewhere for people like Daniel to go. If you need to lock them up, lock them up, but not without anything to do all day."
	The Government response to the Home Affairs Committee report on the rehabilitation of offenders, which was published in January 2005, stated that there were firm commitments that, by 2004:
	"All prisoners with severe mental illness would be in receipt of treatment and that no prisoner with a serious mental illness would leave prison without a care plan".
	In Daniel's case, it is all too clear that those rules were not followed. Many hon. Members are aware of similar cases from our constituencies, so it is important to understand the extent of the problem.
	Last year in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whom I am pleased to see on the Front Bench, the then Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) said:
	"A survey of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales, undertaken in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics, showed that around 90 per cent. of prisoners sampled displayed evidence of at least one of the five disorders—personality disorder, psychosis, neurosis, alcohol misuse and drug dependence—considered in the survey. There will, at any one time, be around 5,000 prisoners with a severe mental illness".—[Official Report, 2 December 2004; Vol. 428, c. 247W.]
	Similar findings were published in a report by the Prison Reform Trust, supported by the Nuffield Foundation, into the mental health of women prisoners. It found that two thirds of women in prison show symptoms of at least one neurotic disorder such as depression, anxiety and phobias. More than half suffer from a personality disorder. Yet, among the general population, less than one fifth of women suffer from those disorders.
	The report found that half the women in prison are on prescribed medication such as anti-depressants or anti-psychotic medicine and there is evidence that the use of medication increases while in custody. Of all women who are sent to prison, a terrifying 40 per cent. say that they have attempted suicide at some time in their life.
	Research by Oxford university into suicide rates for younger offenders is even more shocking. The analysis of suicide rates in England and Wales from 1978 to 2003 found that the difference was particularly striking in 15 to 17-year-olds. Offenders in that age group were 18 times more likely to kill themselves than those in the general prison population. Depressingly, the report concluded that
	"half those who commit suicide in prison have a treatable mental illness."
	If those illnesses were indeed treatable, it means that those suicides could have been prevented.
	The problem goes far beyond mental health; there are also too many prisoners who have serious learning difficulties. According to Home Office statistics, the prevalence of poor educational attainment among prisoners is shocking. Fifty-five per cent. of prisoners had a reading ability of level 1 or below—the educational level for an 11-year-old. That proportion rises to 67 per cent. in young offenders—in other words, two thirds of young offenders have the reading ability of an 11-year-old or younger child. In spelling, 79 per cent of prisoners were at level 1 or below, with that figure rising to 87 per cent. in young offenders. In numeracy, those rated at level 1 or below represented 69 per cent. of the general prison population, and 78 per cent. of young offenders, so the frightening truth is that about three quarters of young offenders are illiterate and innumerate. Despite this, however, the average hours of education in prison were under six hours a week per prisoner in 2002, and only slightly higher in young offender institutions. As a result, most of them are almost as illiterate and innumerate when they leave prison as when they start their sentence.
	This Bill is not about making excuses for those who break the law. One essential pillar of prison is that it should act as a deterrent to those thinking of committing crime and punish those who have broken the law. But prison works only if it also rehabilitates. As one governor said to me:
	"We are very good at incarceration, but not at rehabilitation."
	A prisoner without rehabilitation is a prisoner who will offend again. So, the mental health and learning needs of prisoners must be addressed if we are truly to have a prison system that meets those two core goals.
	The Bill that I am proposing is a simple one. Where it has been established that a criminal has mental health needs, there would be a legal requirement for those needs to be professionally and thoroughly assessed at the start of their sentence. For all prisoners, an assessment would be required of their educational needs. Those with mental health requirements would be detained only in an establishment with specialised facilities, and with staff trained to deal with them. A pathway programme of support would have to be developed to ensure that their mental needs were met. Those needing educational attention would receive a more focused programme of tuition, instead of the haphazard tuition that they currently receive, and it should focus on skills training as well, to give them some hope of employment when they leave. As prisoners with mental health problems are now treated by the NHS, the primary care trust budgets covering this treatment should be ring-fenced to ensure that the funds to finance prisoner care cannot leak away into other areas of health care.
	The objective of the Bill is not to create prison asylums surrounded by barbed wire—far from it. The Bill seeks to ensure that prisoners with mental health needs are kept in an establishment in which those needs are addressed first and foremost, and which works to support their rehabilitation. In no way does it undermine the principle that many people need to be kept away from society, for the good of society and for their own good, but it does mean that they will be given the care and medical support that they need.
	I have visited a number of young offender institutions. They are the most depressing places I have ever been to, and I certainly do not know how we can rehabilitate someone if we lock them up in a 9 ft by 5 ft cell for 18 hours a day or more. And when those prisoners have mental health problems or special learning needs, this becomes a hopeless task unless rehabilitation is at the forefront of the approach. Through specialised and focused rehabilitative methods, the prison system can make major inroads into reducing reoffending. But rehabilitation must be more responsive to the often complex problems of prisoners, which have all too often contributed to them being in prison in the first place, and will have them returning there time and again if they go unresolved.
	The case of Daniel Meehan is a tragic one. A young man with profound mental health needs died because he did not receive the help that he needed. At the start of the 21st century, that is something that should shame us all. We have the power to do something about this. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Charles Hendry, Peter Bottomley, James Brokenshire, Annette Brooke, Chris Bryant, Mr. Edward Garnier, Mr. Dominic Grieve, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Julie Morgan, Mr. Andrew Lansley and Tim Loughton.

Dominic Grieve: I will not seek to divide the House on the programme motion, but I should point out to the Home Secretary that while we welcome the concession that has been made, the practical reality is that we still have far too short a time to consider the amendments tabled for this afternoon. Even at this late stage, I hope that he might consider taking advice on whether further time can be made available. Let me explain why.
	We will start with a debate on the period of detention, which is a subject of considerable controversy. Given the way in which the procedures of the House operate, and the fact that the Government have tabled amendment No. 55, which changes the period from three months to 90 days, anyone wishing to have the 28-day amendment considered must first vote on Government amendment No. 55. We will therefore have to have two votes, whereas one on the 28 days alone might have been necessary otherwise. I am not clear as to why that has come about, except to provide a delay mechanism in the time that the House has for consideration. As a consequence, the reality must be that new clause 8 on stop and search, which was tabled by a Government Back Bencher, and which, I believe, merits the consideration of the House, is most unlikely to receive any consideration whatever. In the context of trying to build consensus, that must be highly regrettable. There is no reason why that should have to happen.
	When we move on beyond the three-hour break, when we will probably have had a couple of votes, and the stop and search matters will not have been considered, we will have five groups of amendments to consider, all of which are of importance, and three hours in which to do it. We might well have time to deal with the offences under clauses 1 and 2, which remain controversial because the Government concessions do not appear to change radically the way in which indirect incitement to terrorism can still be committed negligently. If we have a full debate on that subject, however, which greatly exercised the Committee last week, there must be a danger that we will never get to the glorification clauses, which, as we know from last week, were the subject of enormous controversy. If the Home Secretary wishes to avoid the suspicion that the Government are trying procedurally to close down the debate on those clauses, it would be wise to give us more time. Without filibuster in any sense, we will have difficulty in reaching those clauses.
	I worry, and I shall judge the matter by what happens this afternoon, that we might see a procession of Government Back Benchers put up to prolong the debate on offences under clauses 1 and 2, so that debate is prevented on the question whether a glorification element in incitement to terrorism should remain in the Bill. That would be a scandalous state of affairs. I look to the Home Secretary to provide guidance, as the debate takes place, to ensure as far as is possible that that does not happen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) gets very excited sometimes, but a little calmness might help the situation.

Dominic Grieve: If Members of the other place see that important issues raised in Committee and postponed until Report because the Government said that they would respond positively have not been debated at all, not only will that send a pretty dreadful signal to the public and the electorate of our country about the way in which we conduct our business; it will make it inevitable that Members of the other place will try to second-guess and look again at what has happened here.
	We will not divide the House, because I want to get on, but even now I urge the Home Secretary to consider whether we cannot have more time. I also seek an assurance from him that we will do our level best to get through all the groups of amendments.

Alistair Carmichael: I took exception to very little that was said by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). Like him, we consider the timetable motion defective, but like him I see no reason for us to divide the House on it. I accept the Home Secretary's point that some small measure of protection for the business has been made available, and that small amount of extra time is indeed welcome. Nevertheless, without second-guessing the way in which today's business will proceed, I think it very likely that we shall not go beyond the first string of amendments before the first knife falls after three hours. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, that will leave the stop-and-search provisions proposed in new clause 8 entirely undiscussed. Surely that is too important a subject to leave this House without any proper discussion being placed on the record.
	I also think that a great deal of important business will remain undiscussed under the second group of amendments. The House will have to choose between holding its tongue and restricting its comments on clause 1 and the question of intention if we are to secure any meaningful discussion on the crucial question of glorification. As a result, questions as fundamental as the definition of terrorism itself will almost certainly be left undebated. And as a result of that, the only meaningful scrutiny will be carried out in the other place. If the Government are content to proceed in that way, they cannot then complain that the unelected House has interfered with or changed the Bill when it makes the amendments that are inevitable.
	The programme motion strikes me as an exceptionally inappropriate way for the Government to order our business. I hope that, even at this stage, they may see sense and allow further time tomorrow if necessary.

Kenneth Clarke: I do not wish to be churlish, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on producing a programme motion that is an improvement on the previous position. I certainly will not vote against it, and I am happy to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having listened to the complaints that we made before the general election about the time allocated to a similar Bill. He has tried to respond according to the standards of today's practice, and the House is in his debt to that extent.
	It is, in fact, the standards of today's practice on which I wish, briefly, to comment. As well as trying to avoid being churlish in the House—I hope—I try to avoid overdoing the "senior Member of the House" bit, and lamenting the fact that things are not what they were. But things are dramatically different from what they were, and I cannot hold my tongue on this occasion.
	I believe that if such a controversial Bill involving such changes in individual liberty had been produced 10 years ago by a Conservative Government with such a timetable, there would have been a major row. Twenty years ago, such an allocation of time for a Bill of this kind would have been regarded as laughable, and it would not have been entertained by the usual channels during the Thatcher Government. Thirty years ago, if a Conservative Government had proposed a Bill of this kind, several days of debate would have been allowed before any guillotine curtailing debate would have even been contemplated. Had anyone tried to force through a guillotine of this severity, I should have expected the sitting to be suspended as Labour Members caused disorder and began to run away with the Mace, or something of the kind, to give visual expression to their constitutional outrage.
	There is a serious point behind all this. I think that the House is becoming accustomed to a shortness of debate and a lack of scrutiny of legislation that is on the verge of becoming ridiculous, given the complexity of this Bill. I see no reason whatever why the House should have to rise shortly after 7 pm today and at a similar time tomorrow. The suspension of the rule to allow us at least to sit on through the evening until such time as the Government's business managers decide to try to call a vote to end the debate would constitute a very elementary extension of debating time, which would cause merely minor inconvenience to a few Members and no real affront to the House.
	I also agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that the present situation underlines the case for not tampering with the powers of the House of Lords. I strongly believe that the House of Lords should be reformed; it lacks legitimacy and we need a much stronger Upper House. But if this House is to continue to deal with matters of this importance in such a cursory fashion, it becomes all the more important that the whole Bill be properly scrutinised, and that the Lords force us to look again at, and to discuss in more detail, some of the other very serious aspects of this Bill.

Alex Salmond: I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), although I recall that it was the noble Lord Heseltine who had a fondness for wielding the Mace. But apart from that—[Interruption.] Ron Brown played a secondary role in Mace-wielding. I never wielded it at all, as I remember, but never mind.
	I support the comments of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and I have a very specific reason for being concerned about this programme motion.—[Interruption.] During last week's debate—at which I seem to remember the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy) was not even present—the Home Secretary was forced to concede, by letter to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), that
	"I can confirm that the Lord Advocate has not been asked for, or expressed any view on the proposed extension of the maximum period of detention without charge."
	That admirably candid admission on the part of the Home Secretary is somewhat at variance with the briefings from the Scottish Executive, and was extracted after debate.
	Understandably, many Scottish colleagues who are interested in whether the senior Scottish law officer has been consulted on these matters wanted to pursue the same question today in respect of stop-and-search, glorification and the commission of offences abroad. If this timetable renders reaching these crucial matters impossible, the right of Scottish Members to find out whether the Lord Advocate has been consulted on them, and how this Bill interrelates with Scottish criminal law, will also be curtailed.
	Of course, the Home Secretary would be straying out of order if he gave us that information in discussing other amendments to, and clauses and passages in, the Bill. But I fear that this timetable will make it simply impossible to pursue the entirely legitimate questions of whether Scotland's senior law officer has been consulted on any of the Bill's crucial parts, and whether the Home Secretary was in blissful ignorance of the Lord Advocate's advice on glorification, the commission of offences abroad and stop-and-search, as he candidly admitted he was in respect of 90-day detention.
	In terms of the protection of the House, this programme motion deals with key matters. In terms of the protection and legitimate rights of Scottish Members, and our ability to question what bearing Scottish criminal law has on these proceedings, this motion is far too strict.

Patrick Cormack: I have yet to be able to take part in debates on this Bill because of other duties in the House, and I shall be very brief.I want to endorse most strongly everything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). During Question Time today, the Prime Minister left the House in no doubt that he believes this to be the most important issue that the House currently faces. I agree. I want to treat the votes in this debate as free votes. I want to try to vote in what I consider to be the national interest, regardless of party, and I know that many Members—in all parts of the House—take a similar line, whatever view they may reach on the question of 90 days, 28 days and the other issues before us.—[Interruption.]
	However, if the Prime Minister truly believes that this is the most important issue—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is busy talking at the moment and it would be quite a good idea if he listened. If the Home Secretary genuinely wishes to create a consensus—he has tried to listen on certain occasions, and this programme motion is a modest advance on what we had before—it is an insult not just to this House but to the people whom we represent to deny this House the opportunity adequately to discuss crucial aspects of this Bill that will affect, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, a vast number of our constituents. We are likely to take decisions today that could have a profound effect on the structure of our society, our criminal law and many other things. We should be able to debate these issues, as we could in former days, at not inordinate but adequate length. There is absolutely no opportunity afforded in this programme motion to debate issues such as glorification and stop-and-search at adequate length.
	Even at this very late stage, I appeal to the Home Secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, the defender of the interests of this House, to stop sidelining Parliament and to allow this House—which has, or ought to have, primacy within Parliament—adequately and properly to scrutinise, so that the other place can then concentrate more properly on what it ought to deal with: the detail and minutiae. As it is, we are giving the House of Lords the duty and obligation to examine matters that we have addressed for not even half a minute. That is disgraceful.
	Over the past eight years, we have seen a progressive sidelining of Parliament and an over-mighty Executive seeking to use their muscle. Yes, I accept that the Prime Minister believes that he is acting in the country's interest. I am one of those who have never impugned his good faith on these issues, but I say through the Home Secretary to the Prime Minister, who is not here, that he is not behaving as a Prime Minister who honours parliamentary democracy ought to behave. He should recognise that in a parliamentary democracy, a fragile thing that our forefathers fought for—[Interruption.] Indeed; our foremothers also fought for it. The Prime Minister should recognise that in such a democracy, it is crucially important that we, who between us represent all the people of this country, should have adequate opportunity to debate the crucial issues of the day. This programme motion does not give us that opportunity.
	I fully accept why my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has handled this matter with great sensitivity and skill from the Front Bench, is not going to seek to divide the House. I certainly will not seek to do so from the Back Benches, even though we should divide, because we need to move on to the issues of substance. But the fact that we cannot move on to all those issues is not only regrettable, but a blot on the Government's democratic integrity. I again appeal to the Home Secretary, even at this late stage, to let the House sit until at least 10 o'clock tonight, thereby giving us another three hours over and above what the Order Paper allows.

Lembit �pik: I simply do not believe that there is enough time to understand the unexplained contradictions between the philosophy behind this legislation and that behind the Northern Ireland peace process. I have persistently sought to work constructively with the Governmentand particularly the Northern Ireland Officeto ensure significant progress in Northern Ireland, and to that extent I agree that the Government can take some credit for what has happened there. But I find very frustrating the virtual absence in these debatesprobably owing to time pressureof any significant explanation as to why the Home Office takes such a different approach to this legislation from the one we are expected to support for Northern Ireland.
	The Government need the time to explain why, for example, internment, which was universally regarded as having failed in the Province, is now proposed as a solution to international terrorism. There is a grain of explanation in the form of a comment yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward):
	The Government are looking at a specific UK threat from a kind of terrorism different from that being discussed here.[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 8 November 2005; c. 15.]
	Well, it does not seem very different to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. If the Government want our support and sympathy in these difficult times, they need to provide themselves with enough time to explain the apparent contradictions writ largecertainly in the eyes of Northern Ireland residentsas the Government increasingly try to suggest that there are two different kinds of terrorism. Furthermore, and perhaps ironically, only today Northern Ireland offences legislation is being published

Lembit �pik: Even more contradictions are thrown up by other legislation, but I shall not go into them now, Mr. Speaker.
	The Secretary of State should realise that his decision on the time for debate necessarily prevents a profound understanding of why the Government believe that they are being consistent and joined up in their thinking with regard to Northern Ireland terrorism and international terrorism. Of course the Government can force these things through in a short period, but I warn the Home Secretary that if he insists on doing so with inadequate explanation, not only will he create resentments in the Chamber, but the ramifications of the programme motion for today's Bill are likely to cause significant and practical obstructions that could well prevent the Government from passing other Bills that they desperately want passed in respect of Northern Ireland.
	Let us have a fast debate if that is what the Home Secretary wants, but let us recognise that the Government will pay many times over in terms of the delay and obstruction that will take place, particularly in the other place, because our good will on Northern Ireland matters has been utterly exhausted.

Richard Shepherd: It was right for the Government to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, because the Bill affects every one of us and all those we represent. No one assembled here in the House doubts the importance of the issues before us. In fact, the Bill has many of the features that would, in the old days, have made it be viewed as a constitutional Bill. As a general rule, such constitutional Bills of major importance were never guillotined. Every one of us should have the opportunity to justify, query or give reason to our anxieties about the Bill. I am struck by the fact that we have not concluded any detailed scrutiny of the substance of the Bill before our consideration on Report and before Third Reading.
	My concern is that the debate is so staggered or staged that it seems almost impossible to reach some of the key concepts within the Bill. I therefore want to ask the Government whether this an act of cynicism. Is it a deliberate attempt to ensure that the House will not be able reach the provisions on stop and search, or perhaps on commission of offences abroad or glorification? I believe that denying the House of Commons the proper opportunity to examine the Bill does not serve the Government's own cause of arguing their case to the country.

John Bercow: I agree with those who have argued that the programme motion is unsound and unsatisfactory. It may represent an improvementa modest one, at thaton previous procedure, but in view of previous procedure, that does not say much for it.
	I do not mind vouchsafing to the House, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, that at 7.29 yesterday morning, my wife gave birth to our second childFrederick James, weighing in at 8lb 6oz and born in an excellent national health service hospital. You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House will understand, that I am very keen indeed to take a decent period of paternity leave. Moreover, I have already informed my WhipsI emphasise, informed my Whipsthat I intend to do so.
	I happen to believe, however, that the issueor, rather, the set of issuesbefore us today exceeds in importance any other issues before the House now or for the foreseeable future. To that extent, I agree with what the Prime Minister said at Question Time. Some of us had the privilege of contributing to the Queen's Speech debate earlier this year, and in that debate I made the gentle observation that if the Government were confident of their case on legislation to be put before the House, they should not be afraid of debate, but allow time for arguments and accept that other legitimate points of view can and should be put forward.
	In the context of the programme motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) raised the question of whether the Government were deliberately seeking to circumvent debate. The question has been implicit and sometimes explicitly asked as to whether Ministers are afraid of the arguments. My honest view is that the Prime Minister is not afraid of the arguments and I do not think that the Home Secretary is afraid of the arguments. I am not even going to accuse the Home Secretary, in the context of the programme motion, of engaging in some sort of deliberate Machiavellian parliamentary contrivance. If I were so to suggest, it would probably be unworthy.
	What I am going to suggest is something that I think is as least as serious. The charge is not that the Government are afraid of debate or that they are trying to shut people up. The charge is that the Government are, frankly, careless of and insensitive to the wishes of Back Benchers who want the opportunity to put their legitimate point of view and to receive responses to it. It seems to me that that was the kernel of the argument developed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who is recognised throughout the House as a truly outstanding parliamentarian. He knows that there is a history in this place of considering these matters seriously and at length.
	I say in all sincerity to the Home Secretary, whose sincerity I respect and whose patriotism I acknowledge: what harm would be done either to the Government or to the national interest if we were to debate the Bill tonight until 10 o'clock? What would be the harm if the Government were to acknowledge that there was a welter of different opinions around the House and to let us have another day for debate? What damage would be inflicted; what disadvantage would be incurred?
	If the Home Secretary is looking just a bit irritated, as I suspect he is, it might be because he thinks that he knows that he has got it right, that the Government know what they are doing and that hon. Members must be told to let the Government get their business through. What I would say to the Home Secretary is that he should accept that in this, the cockpit of parliamentary democracy, we should debate the issues fully and comprehensively. We should have that opportunity, but we are being denied it. If I am prepared to stay here until 10 o'clock at night or to have another day's debate on issues that are far more important than most matters that the House will consider, why are Ministers not prepared to allow that? Why cannot we have a proper representation on the Government Front Bench for these important debates?
	Might I say that there was a time in the Housea time that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire will well recallwhen on occasions of this sort, the Prime Minister was customarily in his place to hear the arguments and listen to alternative points of view? What is happening to our parliamentary democracy?

Charles Clarke: I regret to say that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point that assistant commissioner Hayman made. His point was that the modern terrorism that we face is different in certain important respects from the terrorism that we had to face in the past in Northern Ireland. It is the case that the modern terrorism that we face is a challenge for police in Northern Ireland today in a very direct way, which is why the Chief Constable is entitled to make his comments, not as a point of general principle but in terms of dealing with the modern terrorism that he has to face.

Charles Clarke: I do not expect that aspect of the code to deal with the particular point that we debated. Unless I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I think his position is that we need, because of the particular situation of a possibly extended period of pre-charge detention compared to already existing detention, to have a different approach to PACE in certain regards. I shall say later

Menzies Campbell: May I take the Home Secretary back to the issue of the Lord Advocate? From what he told the House a moment or two ago, it appears that the Lord Advocate's view is that the period should be the same both north and south of the border, and that the authorities in Scotland should co-operate with the authorities in England. But it does not appear that the Lord Advocate endorsed the principle of 90 days. Is that correct?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend makes two points, one of which I do not accept and the second of which I do accept. I simply do not accept her description of the Prime Minister's motivation in terms of party politics. I do not think that it is accurate; I do not think that it is his personal motivation; and I certainly do not believe that it is the Government's motivation. As I said on Second Reading, in Committee and at other times, the question that all Members must address is, how can we do our duty as Members of Parliament in dealing with the national interest and national security.
	I do not doubt for a second that these are difficult questions for all of usfor my hon. Friend, for myself and for every other hon. Memberbut I do not believe that we have at any stage taken this issue from the point of view of party politics. Some have interpreted it that way. We only have to look at the media on any day of the week to see that they provide a prism through which they say that all this debate is about party politics in some respect or another. I have tried personally, when interviewed on the media, to rebut that suggestion because I do not think that it is true. I do mean that I think that it is right but not correctly done; I think that it is an inaccurate description of the state of affairs.
	I now turn to the point about consensus, about which my hon. Friend asks me. I believed and hoped as late as last Thursday that we could achieve a consensus with the main Opposition parties about the length of time that should be used. I also agree with her point that I was talking about consensus with Labour Members as well as with the Opposition parties on this question. That is what motivated me in the way that I operated. She may recallI think that she willthat I asked every Member of the House to go back to their constituencies last weekend and take the view of their constituents, talk to them and ask their police and whoever else about these questions. I hope that she would agree that many Members have done precisely that: they have gone back and talked to peopleI am sure that she is one of those who have done just thatand everyone will make their judgments on that basis.
	When I had the meetings with the leadership of the Opposition parties at 11 o'clock last Monday morning in my officeI do not think that the hon. Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who were present for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, would contest thisthey said that for their part there was no circumstances under which they would consider extending beyond 28 days the amount of time for which detention might operate. That was their considered view. There was a discussion about the period between 14 and 28 days. I was of the view, which has been my view throughout, that 28 days is not long enough to deal with the police case that we have, but I was ready to entertain discussions of a shorter period that could arise. I said that publicly in a variety of circumstances.

Charles Clarke: I shall give way when I have finished what I have to say on this.
	I then came to consider the best way to deal with this situation, and the view that I came to was that there ought to be three key areas in which I ought to try to respond to the House, the first of which is the whole area of scrutiny, which we have been talking about already: the role of the High Court judge, the PACE code and the various safeguards in place, which are changes from the position when I was speaking in the House last Thursday.
	The second group of issues are those that we will debate later this afternoon relating to intent, glorification and the definition of terrorismthe range of issues that my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) particularly was pressing from our side of the argument and, in fairness, were expressed by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I felt that I should try to respond to those points, and I believe that we have done so today, although they will be debated later in the process.
	Finally, against all my best instinctsI am not a great fan of sunset clauses in generalI thought that the way to deal with the uncertainty that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) and many other Labour as well as Opposition Members have about the length of time was to say that there would be a period, 12 months, after which clause 23 would run out and the House would decide, on the evidence and on the basis of what had happened in those 90 days, whether or not it should be extended. I am ready to commit, and do commit, to a report to the House on the operation of the law on the 90-day period when the House has to decide it.

Charles Clarke: It is striking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point in such a way. He is right in one essential respect: we tried to work with him and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, over the summer to address these questions. He is right that we organised a briefing on Privy Council terms to consider such questions for him and his right hon. Friend. He says that he is not convinced by the case. He is entitled not to be convinced by the casethat is his rightbut I believe that the case put by DAC Clarke to the Joint Committee on Human Rights was a powerful and effective argument for a 90-day provision.

Patrick Hall: My right hon. Friend has been challenged strongly by the Leader of the Opposition and others for not tabling an amendment today proposing a detention period of less than 90 days but more than 28 days. Is not the real political point, however, the fact that the Opposition parties have already stated in principle that they would not support a detention period of more than 28 days, irrespective of the case made by the police?

Charles Clarke: I shall make some progress, but before I conclude I shall give way to one or two of those who want to intervene.
	I emphasise, as I said on Second Reading, that we are dealing with a very different threat now from the one we faced in previous decades. Recent terrorist plots have been designed to cause mass casualties with no warningsI emphasise, no warnings, sometimes using suicide and with the threat of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.
	Some hon. Members have commented that terrorist cases are no more difficult to prosecute than complex fraud cases, but I argue that there is a very substantive difference between the two. In complex normal cases, the police may build a case before arresting an individual. It may also be possible to catch criminals red-handed in the act of committing a crime such as fraud, as the repercussions are not so great if the crime is committed. The need to ensure public safety by preventing mass casualty attacks that could be catastrophic in their effect means that it is necessary to make arrests in terrorist cases far earlier in the process than in other cases. That often means that much less evidence has been gathered at the point of arrest, so more time will be needed to gather sufficient evidence to charge a suspect.
	Moreover, terrorist networks are often international, which means that highly complex inquiries have to be undertaken in many different jurisdictions. I remind the House again of the investigations into the events of 7 and 21 July, which yielded 38,000 exhibits that filled two warehouses, and so on. Terrorist networks are also now highly capable of using technology. In recent cases a large number, sometimes in the hundreds, of computers and hard drives have been seized. Much of the data on such computers and hard drives have been encrypted and take time to decrypt. The data then need to be analysed to incorporate the outcome of that analysis into an interview strategy.
	Following the debates in the House and the request from hon. Members in all parts of the House for more substance, over the past few days I have consulted advisers from the National Technical Assistance Centre, whose experts deal with the hardest and most important decryption jobs. Their advice has been unequivocal. A 14 or even 28-day period will not allow them the time they need adequately to investigate the most heavily encrypted data. They have made it clear to me that the use of advanced encryption technology by those who pose a threat to law and order or the security of the country is becoming more widespread and is growing rapidly. Encryption is more pervasive, more complex and easier to use than ever before.
	That poses a significant challenge to police and investigators on two fronts. First, it means that even sifting the evidence to identify which computers require specialist investigation and decryption usuallythe experts' wordtakes a number of weeks. Each computer must be examined to assess what data can be easily gleaned and where heavyweight code-breaking is required.
	Secondly, even after the protected data sources have been identified, significant additional time may be needed to decode potential evidence. NTAC has advised me that this is an extremely challenging and time-consuming task, running in the majority of the hardest cases into weeks at the very least, and often even into periods of months. Taking all this together, the technical judgement of the professionals is clear and simple. They need more time to be able to deal with such challenges. We must honour that.
	Forensic requirements, too, are more complex and more time-consuming. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) made a tremendous speech last week about the bomb factory in his constituency and the issues raised by that case. We should take seriously the professional advice of the investigators, the police and the prosecutors about the time needed to enable investigators to reach conclusions.
	I shall give way now for the last time, then I shall wind up.

Charles Clarke: I have had such conversations, and that goes partly to the answer that I have to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) in response to his intervention. I am glad that on 7 and 8 July and the subsequent weekend, there was a substantial programme of discussions between the police and the various communities in west Yorkshire, which were particularly affected. That was extremely impressive. I spoke to many people at the time who were committed to discussing exactly the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) with the communities from which the individuals came and which were most affected, in the same way as the issues in other cases were raised in Gloucester and other parts of the country. There is only one answer: intensive discussions between the police and the local community, local community leaders and local faith leaders. I say with humility that I do not need to give advice on that to, for example, the west Yorkshire force, because I believe they are committed to doing it. But my hon. Friend is right to say that if we make the changes here, it intensifies the need for such discussions.

Mark Fisher: On community involvement, does the Home Secretary accept that if the legislation is passed, it will harden support within communities surrounding terrorist cells, because it will turn people into martyrs? Undoubtedly, people will be detained on a week on week basis, released and found to be innocent. They will go back into those communities and say, Look, this is the sort of state we are talking about and working against. Surely it will be hugely counterproductive.

David Davis: I start on a sad note, because the Home Secretary's comments about this not being a politically partisan exercise were undermined by his final remark. I am conscious that I am speaking on behalf of a party that has seen friends and colleagues murdered by terrorists. The names are familiar to all hon. Members: Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Anthony Berry. This party has first-hand experience of terror, so the House can draw its own conclusions when it faces silly and, frankly, contemptible accusations that any party, least of all mine, is soft on security.
	The war on terror is, after all, a battle of hearts and minds. The Government have passed five terrorism Acts since they came to powerthe Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, The Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and, finally, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Those Acts contain many worthwhile provisions, but none of them prevented the atrocities of 7 July, so let us not pretend that we can win the war on terror by passing every single law that the Government throw up. We will win the war by actually being tough, rather than just talking tough.
	There is a lot that the Government could do. They could secure our borders by introducing a new border control force, which is something that we have often proposed, but they will not do it. They could fund the security services properly by scrapping plans for identity cards and spending the money on intelligence, but they will not do it. They could help to convict terrorist suspects by allowing the authorities to submit phone-tap evidence in court, but they will not do it. They could appoint one, single Minister to take control of our fight against terrorism, which has happened in other countries, but they will not do it.
	We will take no lessons from the Government about being tough on terrorism, because they have failed to take on board many of our proposals, which, although our proposals were not especially innovative, would have brought us into line with the rest of the world. On the crucial matter before us todaythe period for which a suspect can be held without trialwe want toughness that will work.
	Like all hon. Members, we have been searching for a workable proposal and we welcome the Government's changes, which we proposed in many cases, such as better judicial scrutiny, new police and criminal evidence codes, which we hopethe Home Secretary did not address this pointwill facilitate the interview of suspects after they are charged, and a clause, which is not a sunset clause, that requires the annual review of the legislation. It is right to point out that all those provisions were obtained only through parliamentary pressure from both sides of the House. The Government should also listen to what the House of Commons is saying about the duration of detention. On their own, those improvements to the Bill do not remove our responsibility to ensure that the detention is as limited in time as possible.
	It is worth grasping what is at stake right at the startthe imprisonment of men and women without trial in the country that invented habeas corpus. We all accept that, when national security is imperilled, our instinctive support for civil liberties must be qualified and that detention without charge must sometimes happen. That means getting a difficult balance right, because if the period of imprisonment is too brief, the civil liberties of suspects may be protected, but the lives of innocent people may be endangered. If the period of imprisonment is too long, locking up people without charge risks becoming the first resort of the authorities rather than the last. In those circumstances, innocent people are imprisoned. Remember that a 90-day detention is the equivalent of a six-month jail sentence, and the risks include not only an affront to justice, but a public backlash, in which case legislators' mistakes will become recruiting sergeants for terrorists. The House knows the serious consequences for our national security and our civil liberties if we get the balance wrong in any direction.

David Davis: The hon. Gentleman will start terrible rumours if he is not careful.
	The initiative will lie with the police. When the Cabinet Office gave me a Privy Council briefing on the matter, I expressed my concern that the provision will take the pressure off the police to resolve situations quickly. After all, even 14 days is a damaging experience for someone who is innocent, so 90 days is an enormously damaging experience that could wreck lives, ruin jobs and destroy relationships. We must understand that this is a fundamental British freedom that should not be thrown away lightly.
	We recognise the Government's difficulties on this. It is of course a matter of judgment. We acknowledge that the world has changed since the IRA halted its terror campaign. New technology brings new security challenges. As the Home Secretary said in relation to the national technical assistance centre, the police and security services need more time to scour CCTV footage and to crack encrypted messages. The international dimension of Islamist terrorism also brings new challenges. That is why my hon. Friends made it clear in Committee that we agree with the Government that the current 14-day limit is too brief and propose its extension to 28 days. I believe that that proposal will find widespread support among Members around the House, including on the Government Benches. But the proposal before the House is not ours but the Government's. The Government propose a full 90 days. The House must therefore ask itself this question: have Ministers made a robust, convincing and evidence-based case, not for an extension, as there is a case for that, but for 90 days? I do not believe that they have.

Kate Hoey: Does the shadow Home Secretary agree that sometimes even Metropolitan Police Commissioners can get it wrong, as happened in my constituency recently when someone was shot at Stockwell tube? Local people were told for some time that that person was a terrorist, but we then found that everything was absolutely wrong

Clare Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gareth Peirce, a solicitor who has been involved in many of these cases from the Birmingham Six onwards and taken part in an analysis of the detention of people up to 14 days, says that for 95 per cent. of the time, detainees are not questioned but held for hours and even days in their cells? It has been suggested that the police may feel that they have a very long time and therefore not use it, but the evidence is that they are doing that already.

William Cash: On the Attorney-General's position, my right hon. Friend may know that I received a reply from the Solicitor-General about compatibility with convention rights. It states:
	Given the long-standing convention on not disclosing the content of Law Officer advice or whether or not such advice exists, it would be wrong to comment further on this issue.[Official Report, 7 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 2W.]
	My right hon. Friend rightly said that the Secretary of State takes responsibility. Does he agree that Erskine May and other authorities clearly state that the Secretary of State can decide to release that advice if he deems it expedient to do so? Will he ask the Home Secretary why he does not?

David Davis: The Secretary of State can release advice if it is expedient to do so and, I suspect, if it is helpful to his case, which Erskine May does not add. We can easily work out why he does not want to release information.

Michael Jabez Foster: We do not know, because it never happened. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that arrests should be made later, following further surveillance and so on. If he had taken the trouble to speak to local police chiefs, as many of us have, they would have told him that this measure is about the prevention of terrorism, not its detection. Therefore, it is not always possible for the police to wait until they have all the evidence necessary to make an arrest if they need to make that arrest quickly. Does he right agree that that is a fair and reasonable stance to take?

David Davis: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Attorney-General, appears to making a case for internment. I will pass over his slightly fatuous comment about whether I have spoken to any police chiefs recently. Perhaps he does not know what my job is.

David Davis: I will give way shortly, otherwise this speech will consist entirely of responses to interventions.
	It will doubtless be argued that what the police want, the police should have. What the police want carries real weight on this side of the House, but it is not in itself conclusive. If the police want 90 days and are given it because we do not want to stand in their way, what would the House say if they were to come back and ask for 100 days, 180 days, 360 days or two years?
	While we are at it, another point raised by the Minister was about the security services. Let no one claim that the security services want 90 days. Whitehall officials have reported that the security services have made no recommendation on the detention period. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron), let no one claim, either, that we need to bring our periods of detention into line with those of other countries. In Australia, where a murderous terrorist plot has just, mercifully, been foiled because of vigilant police action, there is fierce debate about an extension from two days to 14 days. Most of the other countries with similar judicial systems to ours have smaller, not greater, rights to detain without trial. On the evidence that we have, 90 days is simply too long, and too long by an order of magnitude.
	The relative leisure of the three-month time scale, compared with the present 14 days orfor that matter, 28 daysrisks the imprisonment and consequent release without charge of innocent people. Those innocent people will be drawn disproportionately from one section of the community and there is a real risk in that community of a backlash on an unprecedented scale, not to mention the affront to justice that would be felt by all.
	When this matter was raised with the Home Secretary, it was clearly a sore point, because he went into his high-decibel overdrive, as he sometimes does. He started talking about how the leaders of the community were entirely onside against terrorism. Of course they are. Of course the heads of the Muslim communities, in particular, are onside against terrorism. They fear this more than we do, I suspect. The problem that they face is the problem of radicalisationindeed, unknown radicalisationof very small but dangerous parts of their own community, involving young men in their community. We must not make those community leaders' job more difficult, or, indeed, almost impossible.

David Winnick: Not at the moment.
	This debate is not about the Prime Minister's authority or the standing of the Government. If some of the media, the Opposition or Whips want to play it that way, it does not mean that they are right. I do not challenge the authority of the Prime Minister in any way. I want him to stay in office, and I want this Government to succeed. I spent 18 years in opposition, and I certainly do not want a change of Government. That might clarify the position for some of my hon. Friends who think that I am playing a different game.
	What this debate is actually aboutit might seem odd or eccentric to mention thisis trying to reach the right balance between our traditional liberties, the rule of law, habeas corpus, and at the same time, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), trying to protect this country from acts of terror. As far as those who are in favour of 90 days are concerned, the balance has been reached. Clearly, however, I and my hon. Friends have tabled the amendment, on which I hope that there will be a Division, because we believe that the balance has not been reached with 90 days.
	It should be borne in mind that not a single life destroyed by the mass murderers on 7 July would have been saved if the clause had been in operation. In view of what I have just said, I am not putting that as an argument for not having detention for 14 days or 28 days, but we should bear the point in mind.

Alistair Carmichael: No, I have to make some progress in the interests of allowing others to speak.
	We are charged as parliamentarians with listening to all contributions to debate and to striking a balance between conflicting and competing demands. That is what the Liberal Democrats have done. We have reached the conclusion that the Government have got the balance wrong and that 90 days will do more harm than good.
	I attended the Press Gallery lunch yesterday and heard the Metropolitan Police Commissioner address it. He talked about how it was necessary to question a suspect, often on forensic or other evidence, especially after a charge. His position was that the police would be barred from doing so. I accept that that is difficult under the laws of evidence as they stand, but on the basis of my understanding of the law of England and Wales, I must say that it is not already impossible. Even if it were, or if there were difficulties, those difficulties could be removed by the Home Secretary coming forward with revisions to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code under which questioning is carried on.
	In Scotland, in my view, there would be no barrier to interview of suspects under caution. That is already done, and it might even be possible to give two procurators fiscal powers to raise a new petition with new charges on which they could conduct a judicial examination. That is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
	I must say this about the commissioner's comments yesterday: I question his reliance on the point about questioning suspects on new evidence. The notion that somebody who has been prepared to blow themselves up will, after 10 weeks in custody, somehow be ready to co-operate, having seen the error of their ways with the police, when confronted with a piece of forensic evidence, I find it difficult to accept. That sort of spin and overselling should give us pause for thought. In my view, and this was the point raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), it seems likely that the only basis on which that evidence might be forthcoming would be if the suspect had been ground down in the course of the 90 days, and that would constitute evidence that was unfairly obtained and which, as a result, would be inadmissible. That might leave us in a position in which the only time a suspect spends in custody is the 90 days prior to charge. How does that help the fight against terrorism? In our view, the bulk of cases are already adequately dealt with under the 14-day provision, and that will be sufficient.
	That brings us to what my hon. Friends and I will do tonight about the different votes available to us. We shall first oppose Government amendment No. 55, which seeks to replace three months with 90 days, for what that is worth. If we are successful, we shall support the hon. Member for Walsall, North on amendment No. 1. Hon. Members must be clear that we can get to a vote on amendment No. 1 only if we first defeat amendment No. 55.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must avoid circumstances in which people are detained with no good reason and that the length of time14, 28 or 90 daysis not the issue. However, surely the review clause, which would bring the provisions back to Parliament with a report about how the powers had been used and give us the ability to change the law if necessary, provides protection and would mean that the police and the judges would ensure that people were detained only when absolutely necessary?

Claire Curtis-Thomas: If I may, I shall continue.
	I intend that we go back and check how well the procedures are being executed. Members have welcomed judicial review, and I am glad that we are giving them the opportunity of judicial review, but we must not emasculate them at this point. We would not argue in the House for such leverage in relation to sex abuse. We would say that those involved must do the very best that they can because of the individual's potential to inflict huge damage on our society.
	I am bewildered by some of the arguments about terrorists that I have heard in the House. They may well be innocent individuals, but let us not forget that people are arrested in this country every day although they are innocent of the crimes that have been committed. We arrest them not for the joy of it, but because we believe that they may have committed a crime. We do great injustice to that individual, their family and their society, but we would not resist doing what we need to do to protect the greater good. So I will vote today for the 90-day period. Although I suspect that I know the weaknesses of the police and the criminal justice authorities better than most other hon. Members, I still will not deny them this opportunity.

Michael Mates: In my brief remarks last week, I said that we must think very carefully before rejecting the advice of professionals. I am also on record as saying that, so far as I am concerned, the case for an extension from 14 days is irrefutable, but I have yet to hear enough convincing argument that 90 days is a totally justifiable time, which will guarantee that the police and security services can do all that they need to do to turn intelligence into evidence that can support charges. It is simply their best professional estimate, and we must respect that. Indeed, the Home Secretary has said since last week that the 90-day figure is not crucial. So we are dealing with an estimate and it is up to us to make a judgment.
	One of the reasons why so much heat has been generated about this issue is that the Government have, only very late in the day, realised the necessity to explain and persuade. I accept that the Home Secretary has made genuine attempts in the past few days to explain more fully why this is the Government's position, but it has been too little, too late for many hon. Members. I am personally better informed than I was last weekI stress that I am speaking entirely for myself, because the Intelligence and Security Committee has not come to a view on this matterbut I believe that there is much more that can and should be put into the public domain in a more comprehensive effort to explain the complexities of the problems that face the police and the security services and why their professional advice is what it is.
	To be fair, the Home Secretary has gone further this afternoon than he went last week, but what we really need is a comprehensive description of the whole complexity of the problem, and what we are getting is bits and piecesthe Metropolitan Police Commissioner comes to the Press Gallery; the Home Secretary comes here; someone else gives an interview to a newspaperbut until someone produces the whole argument, I do not believe that any hon. Member can come to a complete and proper judgment. Whatever the result of the vote on the amendment may be, I urge the Home Secretary to do that before the Bill is considered further in another place and returns to the House. I shall be very happy to explain to and discuss with him some of the arguments that should be made public, but that would have to come from the Government, rather than from me.
	I am not going to vote against the proposal tonight because if it were defeated, we would simply vote on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the House would inevitably have to make another choice that would not be factually based. The hon. Gentleman said when he spoke to the amendment that he had decided on a figure of 28 days only because it was double the last one, not because there was a compelling argument that it was the right answer.
	In Committee, many hon. Members agreed that the worst thing would be to simply arrive at a figure around which there was consensus, but which was not based on the needs and complexities of the situation that have led the professionals to tender the advice that they have. I am completely satisfied that an extension is fully justified. I am also satisfied, from what I have been told, that an extension to 28 days would be wrong and would not give the police and security services the tools that they need to cope with such a complex matter.

Rob Marris: I shall confine my remarks to amendment No. 63. I shall not accept interventions, except from Front-Bench spokespeople or from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who tabled the amendment with me.
	I do not know whether its wording is right, but amendment No. 63 seeks to provide compensation for anyone who is released without charge after being incarcerated for more than 14 days but less than 90 days. They would receive compensation for financial losses. I apologise to Scottish Members, because I am a solicitor in England, so I am not using the terminology applicable in Scotland. However, people who are detained would not receive damages for injuries to feelings and so onthey would only be compensated for financial loss if, for example, they lost their house or job, and were thus deprived of their income.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged, the amendment would affect an extremely small number of people, as we are told that only a few people are likely to be held for more than 14 days and released without charge. Only a small proportion of that minority are likely to get into difficulties and be able to prove that they had suffered financial losses. The Bill is extraordinary legislation, and I do not intend that my amendment should be used as a precedent by people remanded in custody and acquitted, as their situation is not extraordinary.
	People who have been convicted and imprisoned wrongly, such as the surviving members of the Birmingham Six, received compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) helpfully mentioned the financial hardship faced in detention by people who are held without charge for more than 14 days. My amendment does not cover such individualsit only deals with losses suffered after the eventbut my hon. Friend made the case for such compensation. I am heartened that the Secretary of State agreed to look carefully at the amendment. It is a pity that he could not make a greater concession, but that is the nature of politics. I remind him and other Front Benchers that I am seeking genuine progress on the issue before the Bill leaves the other place.

Ben Wallace: I will not give way at the moment.
	It is important that we do not forget those lessons. If we alienate people, they will not come forward. I am not saying that people in communities will ignore someone walking down the street with a bomb, but they will ignore the signs. They will ignore the individual in the mosque who is starting to stir up trouble. I know from my own experience that when we had heavy-handed regiments in parts of Belfast or in East Tyrone, the information dried up. People did not pick up the telephone to let us know that there were people down the road behaving suspiciously.
	The Government have argued that there is a difference between the terrorists in Northern Ireland and those whom we face now. Yes, of course, what the terrorists are trying to achieve by killing innocent people and how they are trying to achieve it is different, but the cause is not. The way to solve terrorism is no different. It is only when communities engage with the forces of law and order that we start to head such people off. Whatever has caused the current problems in France, how much will the Algerian community, the north African and Muslim communities help the forces of law and order in the next year or two? The answer is very little. We must be careful how we proceed if we take individuals out of communities, which will be predominantly Islamic communities, some in my constituency, and hold them without charge for 90 days.
	The Government have so far failed to give us a case that would be solved by detention for 90 days. I am not arguing from the human rights point of view. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would probably disagree with some of my suggestions, which go further than he would. Some of the Government's reasons are entirely bogus. Let us consider oneencryption. The Home Secretary will know that in some serious crime cases, investigators have failed for two years to crack the computer encryption. The Government cannot guarantee that every encrypted device will be unlocked in 90 days, so are we to expect that they will return in a year and ask for the power to lock people up for a further year because a new encryption technique has been invented? Is that what they are trying to say?
	Let us examine some of the other issues. I, like a number of my hon. Friends and probably Labour Members, received the letter from the chief constable or perhaps the template of such a letter, urging me to support the measures. I rang the person I was told to contact, who was one of the heads of special branch. I said to the police officer concerned, Let's look at some alternatives. Let's look at interviewing under charge. He said, That would really help to move matters along.
	I said, What about some of the restrictions on informers, because of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000? Some people might think that was a good thing. The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Service of Northern Ireland did not think that those restrictions were good. It is interesting that the Home Secretary said in the House today that the police say we must, so we must, but when the police said we must not restrict special branch in Northern Ireland, the then Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ignored those wishes.
	I asked the police officer, What about Iraq? He replied, Without the Iraq war, we probably wouldn't have had quite so many people queuing up to take part in some of the current problems. We must recognise that part of the problem we face today is due to previous legislation and current issues leading up to the debate today. The answer is not for the Government to come back to the House, take a short cut, lock people up for 90 days without trial and expect everything to be hunky-dory.
	If we take such a short cut, I am almost certain that we will have to return to the issue. We will still have bombs on the underground and terrorists preparing for attacks, because the causes still exist. What I learned in Northern Ireland is that as long as there is a cause, people will queue up to replace those who have been incarcerated, so we should not start with the principle that we learned so wrongly in 1972that internment is the solution.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) does not know this, but when I served in Northern Ireland, I knew her very wellshe used to move around in a black Ford Escort. It was my job to know such things, and I also know that it took years to solve terrorism in Northern Ireland.
	If we act on the preventive principle, where will we stop? Why not go on to serious crime? Why do we not lift all the armed robbers? Why not go on to benefit fraud? Where do we draw the line on such issues?

John Gummer: Is it not always true that there are two arguments for destroying human rights: one is, We have never had a situation like that before.; the other is, We have no intention of making it worse later on? Both those arguments are very dangerous, and this House should not accept them.

Hazel Blears: I am only sorry that this debate is not as much of a draw as the main attraction earlier, but I will do my best to make it as interesting as possible. The amendments build on some of the concepts that were contained in the amendments tabled in Committee by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and his hon. Friends.
	As the House will recall, we had quite a lengthy debate in Committee on the issue of intent and, more particularly, how we ensure that the offence of encouragement to terrorism in clause 1 of the Bill is workablewhich is what I said I wanted it to bebut does not cast its net unduly wide. I undertook to examine that issue further because I wanted to ensure that we did not catch people who clearly were not in any way intending to encourage others to commit acts of terrorism. We have gone back to the drawing board and come up with a formulation that we hope meets those objectives.
	The key amendment in this group is amendment No. 34, which replaces the existing clause 1(1). It provides that the offence in clause 1 can be committed in only two circumstances. Both of those circumstances were contained in amendments that we discussed last week, so the concepts have already been properly explored. The first set of circumstances is where a person makes or publishes a statement and intends it to be understood by its audience as an encouragement to carry out acts of terrorism. I do not think that anyone could object to that being a criminal offence, and we have put the word intends on the face of the Bill so there is complete clarity about the conduct that is meant.
	The second set of circumstances is where a person makes or publishes a statement and is reckless as to whether or not it is likely to be understood by his or her audience as an encouragement to carry out acts of terrorism. Again, for clarity, we have put the word reckless on the face of the Bill, and that was a word drawn from Opposition amendments in Committee.
	We have also defined reckless for these purposes as being a case where the person could not reasonably have failed to have been aware of the consequences of his action. Again, I am sure that no one could object to this provision. If an individual makes a statement encouraging others to commit an act of terrorism and could not reasonably have failed to realise the likely consequences of his actions, that should clearly be an offence.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I hope that I can be constructive on this point. The Minister will be aware that I have tabled amendment No. 64. It would add to the recklessness test a determination of whether a person
	is reckless as to whether the statement will have that effect
	an encouragement or an inducement
	upon reasonable members of the public.
	That measure would deal precisely with the problem because if I said something that I thought that a reasonable member of the public might take to be an inducement, I would be guiltyI could understand that. The problem that we all have at present is that if I say something that I know that a very unreasonable member of the public might take to be an inducement, I would undoubtedly be caught.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am sorry because my comments will be repetitive. If I am a seriously radicalised Muslim who is contemplating carrying out acts of terror, the fact that someone in a public position and a politician indicate that they have sympathy or understanding for such actions is likely to encourage me.

David Heath: The Government are developing a prodigious talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They undertake a listening exercise, and agree that something is wrong with their Bill and try to find a way to resolve it. They go almost all the way towards securing the support of Members in all parts of the House, then they ruin it by quite extraordinary drafting. That is very regrettable. I would have hoped that last week's debate, which was perhaps in rather more high-flown terms than we are mustering this evening, might have persuaded the Government that they had to do the job properly. The result of last's week's vote might have indicated that were they not to do it properly, the Bill was highly unlikely to survive in this House or another place without further amendment. I regret that the Minister has come to the House with a rather unacceptable amendment.
	I want to return to the origins of what the Government are trying to do, with which I have a number of problems. First, I do not understand why the current incitement offences on the statute book are insufficient to deal with the issue, apart from the fact that they are not prosecuted. Many of us find ourselves increasingly impatient because the police and prosecuting authorities do not use the offences already there to deal with the problem. Undoubtedly, incitement offences could have been used on occasions against prominent individuals who would be caught by the prospective legislation.
	Secondly, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) pointed out, incitement is the correct term in the context of such an offence, rather than encouragement. It worries me that such a mild term is used in a way that is open to all sorts of constructions, which we have yet to learn, as the matter has not been before a court. I also worry because we have still not securedand I do not think that we will do so this eveningan adequate definition of terrorism and terrorist offences. Potentially, therefore, an offence can be drawn from a much wider field.
	I do not know whether the Minister intendedor whether she was simply wilfully reckless in the matterto bring forward an amendment with a self-contradictory internal structure. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ably set out, it applies two conflicting teststhe objective test of recklessness and the subjective test of recklessnessin relation to the same clause. It is recklessness of a high degree to consider what the court has expressly rejected and then to introduce that in new legislation, as though nothing had happened and it had never been considered. That might be part of the Prime Minister's declared policy, as expressed at Prime Minister's questions todaythat he would prefer to listen to police officers than Law Lords. I am sure that that will endear him to those who will consider this Bill later. Perhaps he believes that Law Lords simply do not understand law in the same way as police officers do. I must, however, counsel Home Officer Ministers that that is not a sensible way of approaching the issue.

David Heath: There are a number of points to make. First, we are dealing with a constraint on freedom of speech, which does not apply to those other offences. In the sexual offences legislation, we are dealing with a specific issue of an interaction between two people in which the critical issue is consent, and in which one person's word will often be used against another's, and in that instance it is absolutely appropriate for the jury to come to a view on an objective test. I really do not understand how the Minister can come to the Dispatch Box, apparently briefed by her civil servants, to proclaim proudly that what she hopes to enact is that which is within the Caldwell case, which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield has described as something that leads to injustice. The Minister parades case law that has apparently been interpreted as leading to injustice as an argument for including it in the Bill. The House deserves rather better than that.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield made an interesting point about what a cleric newly arrived in the country might understand the clause to mean. As he said that, it occurred to me that the cleric might be quoting holy scripture.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) feigns incredulity, but I could quote a large amount of holy scripture that would fall within the constraints of the clause. That worries me. It also occurred to me to wonderthis too is an asidewhat the position of an interpreter would be. Does an interpreter publish the words that he is asked to interpret? At what point does his understanding of what he has been asked to interpret become a potential offence under the clause?

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision would apply not only to Guy Fawkes and Robin Hood but also, at least in theory, to Gerry Adams? There is a difficulty for the Prime Minister and the Government, as it is unclear that the Prime Minister would not fall foul of his own law, given the fact that he has often praised, and expressed admiration for, the contribution of a man who is unquestionably a former terrorist. The courts could have a field day with the Prime Minister, who could end up behind bars as a result of the provisions.

David Heath: I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). There is no place for the offence on our statute book. I do not see the point of it, and that is not because I lack any vigour on fighting terrorism. I simply do not believe that it is a useful addition to the offences available to the police and prosecuting authorities to reduce the likelihood of terrorism.
	Let us make no bones about this. The provision is clearly a vestigial remnant of an idea that must have sounded good on the day on which it was put forward by the Prime Minister, but that has been expunged elsewhere. The fragment of the Prime Minister's idea remains in the Bill, but I hope that we will clear it up today, which is why we have put our names to amendment No. 3.
	The offence might have looked appropriate in 17th century legislation because it is the sort of thing that Parliament passed at that time. Parliament could afford a little imprecision in its terms in those days because it knew that it had a compliant judiciary that could be relied on to do the Executive's bidding. I can imagine some of my ancestors being prosecuted for glorification. They were transported as slaves after the rebellion in 1685. We had a wonderful judicial system in those days because defendants were advised not to plead their innocence before the court because that would waste the court's time. We have moved on a long way since then.
	The provision is drafted in such imprecise terms that it undermines the Government's rational case behind other measures in the Bill. Its chilling effect is that it has the capacity to worry a great many people who will never be prosecuted under the Bill. We have considered such an effect when we have dealt with other legislation. The fact that it might be possible to bring a perverse prosecution under the Bill could mean that people would think it better not to say what they had intended to say. However, that would lead to the serious curtailment of our free speech.
	The Government have provided for other offences in the Bill. We have just debated the encouragement of terrorism. I have already said that I would prefer that activity to be termed as incitement because encouragement is a loose term. However, the concept of encouragement is a million times better than the strange offence of glorification. Labour Back Benchers made many valid contributions when we last discussed the matter and pointed out the dangers of the imprecision that was inherent in the measure.
	I hope that the Government will be prepared to think again even at this late stage. I do not think that those in the other place who are well versed in lawcertainly better versed than I amwill wear it for a moment. The provision will be struck out there, but as I have said on many occasions, it would be preferable for the elected House to do its job. Ministers claim to be looking for consensus on the Bill, but they know that there is a general consensus on the proper requirement to deal with people who incite terrorism in this country. They should listen to others and acknowledge that the provision will not achieve what they want.
	We have heard fanciful and hyperbolic examples of what could be caught by the offence. Although they are useful for illustrative purposes, I do not think that anyone seriously assumes that the Attorney-General would prosecute anyone for the flimsy reasons that have been adduced as behaviour that could be caught by the offence. Of course, such prosecutions would not be brought. When we are legislating in the House, particularly when we introduce new offences that curtail the power of free speech, which some of us hold dear, we must be extremely careful and precise. We should know what is intended in the measures, and if we use hyperbole to illustrate our case we should do so with the intention of bringing the House to its senses so that it can understand the consequences of ill-considered legislation.
	My hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments Nos. 31 and 30, which deal with the use of the word glorification in clause 21. I urge the Government to reconsider its inclusion, because we have terms to proscribe organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. Only a few weeks ago, the Minister submitted to the House a further list of organisations that should be proscribed under that Act. The House agreed with her, albeit with concerns about one organisations. Generally, however, it was happy to accede to her view that those organisation should be proscribed under that legislation. If she is going to extend the terms of proscription to include the vague concept of glorification, a vast number of organisations around the world could be caught. Some of those organisations may have had a presence in this country, but that will not be the case for many of them, as we learned from the order that was laid before the House only a few weeks ago.
	If we widen the scope of proscription, there will be intense diplomatic pressure on the Government to proscribe many organisations of which we know little. Another country's Government, for example, may say, We have a problem with a certain organisation, which spends all its time saying what a wonderful thing it was that the statue of our President was blown up last week. That is entirely unacceptable. If Her Majesty's Government are serious about terrorism, when will you take the necessary steps to proscribe that organisation? If we wish to maintain a good diplomatic relationship with that country, the pressure on the Home Secretary to accede to that request will be very strong indeed.

Kenneth Clarke: I accept your doubtless correct ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I should not press the detail of my question much further.
	I heard the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). It looks to me as though clause 1 is relevant only insofar as it is relevant to the application of the convention, but that is not wholly clear, and I hope that the Minister will clarify it. As she knows, I do not like the references to glorification in any event, and the whole thing is made more undesirable, unattractive and fraught with political risk if it turns out to have universal application.

John Gummer: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the reason for my unhappiness with the word. He is right that, if ever there were a subject about which our language should be clinical and avoid overtones that might have the effect that he described, we are considering it. He is right to point out why it is so dangerous.
	However, it is also dangerous for another reason. If glorification were some residuum of a law that was passed in 1734 and somebody suggested that it would be a good idea to get rid of it because it was no longer useful or might be used badly, the answer would be the same as the one the Minister has given in previous debates: it is perfectly safe because nobody could use it and there is always the gate of the Director of Public Prosecutions and others. That works if it applies to a provision that has been in desuetude for a long time. However, we are proposing a new provision. It would be difficult in 2006 to say that we did not mean legislation of 2005 to apply to a case. We could not claim that it was a jeux d'esprit or a little twiddle in an otherwise dull Bill. It would be hard to argue that. The intention to include it in such a serious measure is therefore genuinely problematic for the Government. Let me define the three specific problems.
	First, the Government should not underestimate the extent to which the Director of Public Prosecutions can be perceived by those who do not understand the process as a political figure. We all have experience in our lifetimes of examples when, because the Director of Public Prosecutions has or has not allowed something, it has been suggested that Ministers have leaned on him. That is a mean, unpleasant and unfair suggestion but it should nevertheless be avoided rather than encouraged.
	Secondly, the provision becomes an even greater danger if extra-territorialityI am delicate in my references because of your earlier, proper restrictions, Mr. Deputy Speakerturns out to apply to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) suggests. Those who may wish to put pressure on the Government are even less likely to understand the independent position of the Director of Public Prosecutions if they are from countries where such an independent position does not exist. The example given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) of the Russians and the Chechen rebels, or my own example of the Rwandan authorities and the Belgian priest, would in those circumstances become even more germane. The Government would be likely to have pressure brought to bear on them by people who were not going to take seriously the fact that this great independent figure, the Director of Public Prosecutionsso unknown anywhere elsewas the gate that had prevented a prosecution from taking place.
	Thirdly, I beg the Minister to recognise that this legislation as a whole has struck a very sharp note for many people among the ethnic minorities in this country. The Home Secretary was utterly right, in answering an earlier intervention, to point out the enormous support for law and order and the opposition to terrorism that we find among the Muslim community. Unfortunately, he was not answering the question that he had been asked. It was a very good answer to a question on that subject, but that was not the question that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) had asked him. I am not going to stray from the subject of glorification, Mr. Deputy Speaker

Geoffrey Cox: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). My objection to this clause is largely based on the fact that it is a pointless excrescence and a wholly unnecessary appendage. It resides in the Bill solely for the reason that the Government announced over the summer that they would criminalise glorification, and so had to leave some reference to glorification in the Bill.
	It is clear on examining the relevant part of the clause that, in any event, it is used only as an example of the kind of conduct that the clause proscribes in an earlier part. It is an inclusive statement that simply points the way to the all-embracing umbrella section, which makes it an offence indirectly to encourage a terrorist act. As my right hon. Friend said, it is a pernicious and pointless appendage that has no place in legislation made by this House.
	The common law has always been extremely careful to ensure that the proscription of speech is precise, carefully targeted and narrowly defined. That is why the common law has always proscribed the incitement of specific acts of violence. On examining the common law offence of incitement, one sees that the ingredients require that an accused person mustmusthave incited a specific act identifiable and particularised by the Crown in the indictment. But the clause and this specific section of it simply enable the glorification of a type of conduct, with no need for a specific act to have been encouraged or incited.
	The dangers have been dwelt on by Members in all parts of the House, but my right hon. Friend put his finger on a particularly important point. Among the many examples that Members have used, we have heard some that are fanciful and others that are more realistic. The glorification of some heroes of the past has been dismissed by Ministers as the product of fevered fantasy, but the truth is that a more subtle and insidious danger arises from this clause remaining in the Bill.
	Let us suppose that a speech was made at Hyde Park corner by an English nationalist who wished to sing the praises of Hereward the Wake. That it should even be thought that the glorification of the conduct of Hereward the Wakewho led an uprising, as I recall, against the Normanscould in any respect be in danger of being criminalised or made illegal by this Bill might attract from us smiles and a degree of risibility, and we would doubtless be right. The Director of Public Prosecutions would greet with consternation and dismay any lunatic who even proposed the idea that a speaker on Hyde Park corner singing the praises of Hereward the Wake might invoke the penalty under this clause.
	Let us suppose that the speaker on Hyde Park corner was not white. Let us suppose that he was a Muslim, and that he was glorifying and praising not Hereward the Wake, but the actions of Saladin. Let us suppose that he was holding out for emulation the actions of Saladin in the wars that he fought against Christian civilisation for two or three decades or more. Let us consider the circumstances of the time and take into account the particular factors of the speaker's audience, which might include not only ordinary Londoners going about their business, but one or two Muslims, perhaps some of the Arab race and some who were susceptible to the message of waging a crusade against Christian civilisation. The speaker might notice them coming from the local mosque; he might see them gathering around his soapbox on the corner of Hyde park. I do not know whether there is, in fact, a mosque local to Hyde park, but let us suppose that there is one and that gathering around our speaker is a crowd of turbaned, Arab and Muslim people.
	Still, our Hyde Park speaker continues to sing the praises of Saladin and begins to discern the murmuring and sussuration[Hon. Members: Ooh!]yes, sussuration and I shall be providing a few more soon. He senses the restiveness of his audience and begins to see that, although he has perfectly innocent intentions, his praise of Saladina great hero of the Arab raceis beginning to excite an intemperate reaction among his audience. Perhaps, we might say, a wise speaker would button his lip. A wise man would cease to speak at that point, climb down from his soapbox and immediately go silent. However, it would be too late, for he would already have committed a crime because he would have glorified in circumstances where he could see[Interruption.] I notice that the Minister is looking at me in consternation, but for 23 years I have practised law in the criminal courts of this country, and let me tell her and Government Members that more stupid prosecutions have been brought than thatfar more.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to those who tabled the amendments for allowing us to revisit this area. I shall endeavour to respond to the contributions made, which have ranged from Wat Tyler to Hereward the Wake through all points in between. I am grateful to hon. Members who acknowledged that some of the examples given have beenI think this was the term used fanciful. I am grateful, too, for acknowledgements that this is a serious matter, although I must tell the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox) that terrorism is a serious issue and the tone in which he made some of his contribution really did not reflect that seriousness.
	I remind the House that we had a pledge in our election manifesto to outlaw the glorification of terrorism. We originally had a stand-alone offence but have come now to the formulation in clause 1. Lord Carlile, our independent reviewer of the legislation, says that
	in my view, this proposal in its revised form is a proportionate response to the real and present danger of young radically minded people being persuaded towards terrorism by apparently authoritative tracts wrapped in a religious or quasi-religious context.
	So, Lord Carlile agrees that in the revised formnot as a stand-alone offence but as something encapsulated in clause 1the response is a proportionate one.

Dominic Grieve: I am interested in the Minister's endorsement of the words of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), as she has just provided a let-out for every person who wants to incite terrorism. If all that is required to get around the clause is to preface one's remarks with that saving clause, why are we passing clause 1 into law? That is a classic illustration of the muddled thinking behind the Government's approach. The Government should remove glorification and stick to incitement, with proper terminology. They will then have an offence that works, that bites and, moreover, commands widespread respect.

Hazel Blears: What should be criminal is the indirect incitement and the encouragement of people to commit acts of terrorism. Clearly, when we come to the other clauseswe may not have a chance to debate themI want to deal with the points about extra-territorial jurisdiction made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). Again, with some of the amendments that we have introduced, we have tried to narrow the scope of those offences to try to reassure hon. Members that they are targeted at the specific mischief. However, if the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) is asking whether I can pick and choose between regimes or perhaps between a good terrorist and a bad terrorist, I repeat that it is wrong for people to encourage others to undertake terrorist acts. As I have said, it is a slippery slope

Bruche Police Training Centre

CORRECTIONS

Official Report, 8 November 2005: In col. 257, before Question put, That the amendment be made, insert:
	Mr. Heath: I am grateful to all those who participated in this brief debate, but hearing the Minister say that it was outrageous to suggest that an electoral experimenta pilotshould be extended to anything as large as a region when the Government had no compunction about forcing four regions through an electoral experiment only a little while ago against the express views of the Electoral Commission and every single party represented in the House other than the Government takes the biscuit.
	David Cairns: We did not move immediately to all-postal regional pilots. They were piloted at a local and voluntary level and lessons were learned before the regional voting pilots that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It would help if he were to clarify that that was the point that I was making.
	Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman again attempts to clarify what he said, but the fact remains that, following that election, we had the biggest crisis of confidence in the electoral system of this country that we have ever seen. For the first time, we had people genuinely doubting whether the election in which they had just taken part was conducted freely and fairly. We should not tolerate that. What is the Government's response? Are they prepared to go into the next general election with the same postal voting precautions in place? Yes, they are. Their answer is, We'll do something, but mananatomorrow, whatever. That is not a satisfactory position. We need to do something urgently. The Electoral Commission has given us a clear steer about how we should go forward and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
	Official Report, 2 November 2005: in column 884, in the Ayes, insert Prentice, Mr Gordon.